To tell the unconventional truth, respecting no one who does not respect Cuba or the Cuban people's right to freedom.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Notable & Delusional: Val Claims "Blog Children" in Cuba

"[I] almost fell out of my chair when I first read Potro Salvaje [a new Cuba-based blog dedicated to helping Cubans circumvent the regime's censorship of the internet]. I was overwhelmed with emotion and was literally reading it through tears. Folks, this is what it's all about. This is what we've all been working towards. This is the fruit of all the hours and hours of reading and writing and posting and publishing. This makes all the anger and frustrations slide right off and into oblivion. While Potro Slavaje [sic] may not be a direct result of all the work here on this humble blog and our excellent Cubiche bloggers, if anyone would have asked me five years ago when this humble blog posted its first entries that there would be not only numerous blogs emanating from Cuba but one specifically dedicated to helping other Cubans on the island find their voices and express their opinions on the net, I would have scoffed at such a seemingly ridiculous statement. But here we are and here is Potro Salvaje. Perhaps all we blog Davids will, in fact, help slay the castro Goliath." -- Val Prieto," El Resolver Cibernetico," Babalú, March 12, 2008

Val is a naturally (and extra-naturally) emotional guy who wears his feelings on his sleeve and is likely to fly that sleeve as a flag whenever the occasion presents itself, so perhaps we should not dismiss all this hyperbole as canned. Because it sounds insincere does not necessarily mean that he is. Perhaps his heart, like the Grinch's, has grown three sizes this day, and he no longer wishes to render all Cubans in a pressure cooker as of old but wants to buy them all a pan con bistec sandwich (figuratively, of course). We can certainly hope so, not for their sake but his.

What is not so becoming, however, but wholly predictable is his attempt to take personal credit for this development which he admits that he did not envisage but which he believes is the fortuitous product of his five years of blogging, "the fruit of all the hours and hours of reading and writing and posting and publishing." This is the foreshortened version of Val's well-known mantra of self-sacrifice. Before I took him to task for it, it used to include also mysterious midnight calls and dead chickens left in his front lawn. Yes, Val admits that Potre Salvaje "may not be a direct result of all the work here on this humble blog." That is, it "may not be," but, in his not-so-humble opinion, is; for else why even mention his sacrifices and not those of the Cubans actually risking their lives and freedom to open a line of communications among themselves and the outside world?

What happens on the island happens in situ. However flattering it may be to convince ourselves that we are shaping public opinion in Cuba, the fact remains that we are not and cannot while accessing the internet remains the equivalent of eating a steak there. The existence of Potre Salvaje only reminds us of how limited and besieged is this new technology in Cuba. The challenges facing Cuban bloggers go much beyond "all the hours and hours of reading and writing" which no doubt extract a high intellectual price from Val, or even the psychological price he pays from those mysterious midnight calls and those dead chickens on his lawn.

It would greatly help Val if he stopped referring to Babalú as his "humble blog" and started practicing some humility himself.

POSTSCRIPT:

In his own post on the subject, Henry agrees (with Val) that Val is the father of the Cybernetic Revolution in Cuba:

"I remember a few years back I was reading the Sun-Sentinel and they had a story about some Cuban guy with something called a “blog” [Henry didn't know what a "blog" was until 3 years ago?] that was taking on “The Burlington Coat Factory” because they were marketing the “Revolution®” brand in the form of Che T-shirts for babies. That’s how I discovered Babalú. What really struck me back then was that the Cuban blogger, Val, was fighting an information war reaching people all over the globe with the truth. He won that scrimmage with The Burlington Coat Factory. The information war continues."

Yes, it continues but Val is not the general leading it, not here or in Cuba.

72 comments:

Please excuse this interruption from your reader's comments. But, I finished reading your post titled "'Mambo Watch' Calls It Quit" and, as expected, I found several inaccuracies and misinterpretations (or deliberate defamations) in your comments. Allow me to respond to you and your readers.

The title of your post states that I have quit, but you also quote me saying that I will be on hiatus. There's a clear difference between the two terms. You also misquote me suggesting that I will return "in a a year or two." I have never made that comment. Please show where I have. You also state that there are "preconditions" for my return, but I have never declared any on my blog. Again please show where I have made such comments.

You also refer to me as "middle-aged," when in fact I'm not even 30 yet (US Census identifies "middle-age" beginning around 35). And, you chracterize me as "an academic," when in fact I have no ties to any academic program or institution at the moment, and neither do I see my personal aspirations qualifying me as "an academic."

You state that I have a "boundless hate for all Cubans," including exiles in the US whom I "defamed on a daily basis." Again, these are serious accusations, and I ask that you show me, and your readers, where I have made such defamations towards "all Cubans." My blog served to "challenge hard-liners," and I challenged their arguments directly, not their person. I have never made any defamations towards any large group of people, but I ask that you show where I have done so. If it is accurate, then I will take responsibility.

You also state that I "attempted to justify" the Cuban governments internal repression, and made comments "propagating for bootless reforms in the system." Again, I have never made such justifications for a system that I personally and publicly abhor, and have never made any comments supporting Cuban government "reforms in the system." I have no interest in Cuba's internal reforms, or making any comments about them. I ask that you show where I have made such comments.

You also state that I have made predictions about potential political reforms "if the U.S. prosecuted Posada Carriles, shut down Radio Mambí, released the 5 Cuban spies and excluded Cuban exiles from the exercise of their civil rights in this country." Again, I have never made this prediction, and have never made these recommendations. I consider the prosecution of Posada Carriles as marginally important to improving US-Cuba relations, I have never called for the shutting down of Radio Mambi, the release of the Cuban Five, or the exclusion of any group from civil society. I could suggest my personal views about each case, but I have not done so on my blog, and again ask that you show me where I have made any comments that support you accusations.

Finally, despite your contempt in calling me a "true believer" or suggesting that I have "handlers," the final three paragraphs of your post reveal a shocking misunderstanding (or deliberate deception) of my writing. I never wrote about humans or humanity and their general emotions or irrationality. I specifically targeted an article in the Miami Herald from the Ombudsman Edward Schumacher-Matos, and his comments towards journalists. My posts made an argument against Schuamcher-Matos' comments as a risk to journalistic independence, and then reviewed newspaper articles referring to the use of specific descriptors from two different historical cases.

The posts weighed personal judgments, but within the framework of professional journalism. You comments suggest that I made general statements about human judgement and emotion, and how I regard "the impulse to tell the truth as an emotional one and hence an irrational one," which should thus be suppressed at all times. I have never made such conclusions, and I find such logic to be incredibly offensive.

All human emotions express themselves in varying degrees, and within a society we have places that accomodate where those emotions shall be expressed. Similarly, a society will find ways where human self-expression can best serve the interest of the general public (such as art spaces, or even the internet). But, there are also places in society where self-expression has a different status, such as places of work and research. But, this status is not the result of force (repression or oppression), but rather from the instincts of human organization. In which case, I personally feel that human judgment is dependent on how we allocate our personal feelings to serve best the general public. Not to serve our personal "truths."

Again, Mr. Tellechea, like other times in the past I ask that you present evidence to support your accusations above, which I feel misrepresents my personal and public views. I certainly hope you do so, unlike other times in the past.

[PS - A reader suggested that I am going on hiatus due to revelations made by Mr. De la Cova about my personal life. That revelation occurred almost six months ago, which I have written about on my blog and has no relevance to my actions now. Additionally, that reader copied excerpts from my personal e-mail exchange with Mr. De la Cova which was done without my permission in violation of my rights to privacy. I ask you Mr. Tellechea to remove that comment, and respect the rights of your readers.]

I went to Potro Salvaje at Charlie's suggestion, I read the comments there and lo and behold Val like fantomas advertised their blogs there, they have no shame, as for Val calling his blog humble, I must say there is no humility there whatsoever, but a lot of chest beating.

Did it take you so long to complete reading my post about Mambo Watch's year-long hiatus, or did it, rather, take you this long to compose your reply?

I hate to break this to you, Pancho, but you have quit. It remains to be seen whether you have quit for good or will return, as you have promised, in a year. There was no guarantee that MacArthur would return until he did. I will credit your return when it comes to past, too.

You may not recall, Pancho, but you publicly revealed your real identity to me (and everybody else) on Miami's Cuban Connection a year ago or so and shortly after you had started your blog. Since that time your name has been in the public domain. I have never used it but it has since been disseminated widely. It is too late now for you to re-claim an anonymity you long ago discarded. All your blog enemies already know who you are and nobody else seems to care.

You were the one who misled me into believing that you were middle-aged. I never presumed, nor do I anywhere say, that you are in fact an academic. I do say that your demeanor is that of an academic. But you are right not to regard that as a compliment.

My opinions are my own and those of my readers theirs. I never suggested that Dr. de la Cova's revelations about you had caused you to shut down your blog. If others choose to think so that is their prerogative. I certainly will not delete their comments to gratify you. Unlike Mambo Watch and Babalú I do not practice censorship at RCAB.

I am entitled also to my opinion about you. I do not have to justify it to you. I think that I was more than kind in judging your contribution to the blogosphere and avoided the abuse which your name customarily evokes among lovers of Cuban freedom.

I still wonder what it was that caused you to unbosom your life's secret to Professor de la Cova in the first place, and de la Cova of all people, whom you had insulted and defamed. When you give yourself over into the hands of your enemies do not complain if they avail themselves of the noose with which you have so kindly provided them.

You have, again, completely ignored what I have written and asked of you.

As I wrote, a commenter has copied an excerpt of my private writing to Mr. De la Cova, which was published without my permission. This is not an act to preserve my anonymity, but rather an act to uphold the right to privacy. As you will note, there are several other bits of personal information aside from my name. I, again, ask that you consider granting me the right of privacy by deleting that comment (as it is in your power), and grant me the right as you would others.

This an appeal to ethics, and not a selfish plea.

Also, I never intended to suggest that you shared the same opinions with another commenter. I was addressing your readers.

Concerning De la Cova, it was he that first insinuated that I was something which I am not. The serious allegation by a Ph.D shocked me and I confronted him. In the end, it is his reputation that is tarnished, not mine. But, Mr. De la Cova has a long history of illicit behavior, that if I had known it at the time, I would have ignored his malicious charges.

If any one here is defamed, it is I.

Again, I not asking you to justify your opinions. I am specifically asking that you verify the claims which I challenged as inaccurate. Those are listed above.

Please show me, and your readers, where I have defamed anyone on my blog. As the author I want take any responsibility where I have defamed any person, and apologize if that is the case

Not long ago I was sent by someone a copy of confidential e-mails which that person had received from Val Prieto wherein Babalú's editor-in-chief confessed candidly and off-the-record his real opinion of Cubans on the island. If I had opted to publish those e-mails, I could have shut down this blog because there would have been nothing else to prove. My case would have been made and I could have moved on to more productive endeavors. But I was not even tempted for a minute to publish them because I had no right to violate his privacy and I refused to do it because I think better of myself than I do of him.

However, I am not in a position to restrain others from acting in accordance with their scrupples.

Whatever harm these disclosures may have done to you is already done. Your e-mails are published on numerous sites, and you know, of course, that even were you successful in having these copies deleted, there is one site that will never delete them and that's where they originated.

My own blog has a firm policy of never deleting comments. However, you may appeal to the author to delete it. "Sherlock Jimenez" is none other than fantomas, who runs the abajofidel blog. It is in his discretion whether he wishes to delete his comment or not.

I am not a psychologist nor am I given to psychological speculations; but I will always wonder and regret that someone with your considerable talents put them at the service of such a wretched cause.

I thought you never used another moniker on this blog and always posted under your own. Apparently not. Whatever disguise you choose to don, I will always see through it, because I am the real "Sherlock" not you.

Honestly, no harm has been done to me because of being "unmasked" by Mr. De la Cova. I was being open to Mr. De la Cova to counter his accusation of hiding my identity. I have no problem telling anyone about my personal life. I have been open to people and readers by e-mail on other occasions. But, I am opposed to people exploiting those moments of sincerity, and then making clear violations that perpetuate uncivilized behavior.

When Mr. De la Cova posted my private writings later at the Babalu Blog and Los Miquis, I made the same appeals to have those comments removed. Both have gone ignored.

I make the same appeal to you, and ask you to set an example to stop the continued publishing of my private writings without my expressed permission. If you ignore it, despite having the power to easily remove it at the click of a button, then you yourself have taken en equal position to allow others to commit the same ethical violations.

And, I still believe I am entitled to know how I have defamed anyone, since it is my right to take responsibility for my work.

Fantomas is nuttier than a fruitcake. Rantings, ravings, & revelations… from a fruitcake. He should change his blog name "AbajoFidel" to "Tin Foil Fruitcake Blog" This guy is fruitier than a fruitcake. He’s a fruitcake made from baloney with extra nuts.

Vana 20 times a day, you gotta laugh, yes I come here often, but you beat me, you live here blowing everyone's mind, besides there have been a lot of commenters here lately, too bad they are anonymous, we don't get to know each other, but I'm happy for this site, the more the merrier.

I get 89 visits from you alone every day. I sometimes wonder why you just don't log in all day as you used to. I suppose you are busy causing havoc elsewhere, and ignoring, as usual, your own deserted blog.

Now that the skeletons are again rattling in your mind's closet, I may take your advice and confine you to The Madhouse. There you can brag to your heart's content about your greatest achievement in cyberspace -- sabotaging Miami's Cuban Connection with pronouncements from NAMBLA.

As I said, this matter is in the hands of fantomas. Good luck dealing with him. Perhaps that will be your expiation.

You ask me to tell you whom you have defamed? Don't you know? After all, it is you who defamed them. Your blog defames all anti-Castro Cubans by equating the victims with the victimizers, which can only benefit the latter. You have never been squeamish about defending the dictator or justifying his abuses. In sum, you are an apologist for tyranny, no different from those who, in their day, concealed, equivocated and lied about Stalin's crimes or Mao's.

If this is your "vocation" -- for which you receive no renumeration -- then your hatred for Cubans, directed at Cubans here but ultimately rebounding against Cubans on the island, is even more contemptible since it springs from malice rather than self-interest.

Do you believe Pancho is capable of becoming an objective and impartial journalist whenever he decides to get a real job?

Also, is he a castro apologist or a Cuban hater? You said once that he was a "believer" but what drives his passion when there are so many poor people in Miami and Peru whose cause he does not champion.

Pancho has all the makings of a potentially successful journalist, that is, he has the skills and the left-wing bias, which does raise the question of why he declines to work in his chosen profession, or, indeed, to work at all.

To answer your question, Pancho is both a Castro apologist and a Cuban hater; it is impossible to be one without being the other.

As for his apparent lack of interest in his native Peru, I can only suppose that being raised in Miami among Cubans is the cause. The fact that his family immigrated to this country deprived the Sendero Luminoso of another shining light.

MAT,I remember Mambi Watch's vigorous defense of the March 13 trawler incident in which so many women and children perished as a result of that despicable act of the Cuban authorities. This same authorities who without any shame or decency, now claim there was a genocide committed in the actions of Colombia killing the FARC leader Reyes. He called a terrible accident, now that takes a lot of gall! I was not surprised at Mambo's defense since he never seems to find anything worth criticizing about Cuba's Govt.'s disgraceful behaviour but much in the exile community that he so hates so much. Anyone who reviews his writings over the past year can verify this. Just take a big dose of Mylanta and visit his blog Mambi Watch and see for yourselves. But here now he wants us to believe that he abhors and despises the Cuban regime. Please Mr. Benavides, have at least a little bit of respect for us and don't insult our intelligence! Your claim that you abhor the Cuban regime is empty and a fallacy, as anyone who can review your writings and commentaries in other blogs can attest and see for themselves.And last, is a little late for a phony act of contrition, don't you think?

Mambo has a visceral hatred of Cuban Americans and it would be a good study to find out where this stems from. Does he have a major chip on his shoulder because his parents had to work for Cuban Americans? . . . Is he just another "brain-washed" by left academia; a self-important useful idiot,or is he an "infiltrado"? I dunno, but he does sound like a tormented soul.

Mr. Farinas,I have some info on FARC that I think would be of interest to you. You can e-mail me at:calabazaseeds@yahoo.com, if interested and I will gladly send the articles to you.

There is hope even for tormented souls. If Mambo disowned his past writings and thanked those like de la Cova who pushed him kicking and screaming into the light, and, more importantly, if he devoted himself to combatting the very lies that he once propagated, there might be hope of personal redemption for him. I doubt, however, that those of us acquainted with the old Mambo could ever trust him 100%.

Quote me in one instance on my blog where I have defamed or told a lie.

Do it. Simple challenge that I pose here to the readers of RCAB.

The explanation that my writing comes from hate or anger is too convenient. Let's do a comparison. Try to recall the number of times writers over at Babalu Blog have used profane words in their posts. And, then try to recall how many times I have used such words in mine.

As you will notice, I have NEVER used profanity in my writing.

The other false explanation that I write out of hatred comes from Mr. De la Cova. After publishing words that he had no right in publishing, he then decided to put on the hat of a psychologist (which obviously is not his field of expertise).

Using select events of my life he denigrated my person and said that I somehow have an "inferiority complex". This antiquated description from the days of Freud, whose general work currently is not taken seriously in the field anymore, is nothing more than based on ignorance and malice.

If anything, my admiration and trust of Cubans in Miami stems from the care and love received by my family in difficult times and how our families became close. Most of my youth was spent very close to Cuban families and I have NEVER had a moment I can recall which was negative. I have but great appreciation and loyalty to those who took us in.

But, I cannot say the same for those who speak of intolerance and violence in a community where I have grown up in.

That's why I challenge hard-liners. Their arguments supporting violence and intolerance must be subject to open criticism.

I am sorry that I am too busy with the ravings of the Babalunians to attend to yours. I do, however, encourage the readers of this blog, if they are so inclined, to publicize here your most outrageous contentions, the profusion of which requires a very fine discernment in the selection.

It is true, as I have previously acknowledged, that you have the manners of a girl. But one does not have to be profane or rude to be offensive.

I had thought that you or yours had been horribly used by some Cuban family and that this explained your animus towards all exiles. But you have just admitted that you have received nothing but kindness throughout your life from Cubans. Now I can assume only that you are an ingrate. Ingratitude to me is worse than any "inferiority complex."

You say that you are against "violence and intolerance." Unfortunately, it is not the violence or intolerance practiced by the organized crime family that took the Cuban people hostage in 1959. You are opposed to anti-Castro Cubans exercising their right to protest in a free country the atrocities committed by the Cuban dictator and his henchmen. You even refuse to recognize that Castro is a dictator because that might prove offensive to him. The offense proferred to the Cuban people by 49 years of unelected rule does not concern you. You would rather offend the Cuban people by denying or discounting the great wrong done to them by the imposition of Communism than offend Castro by holding him accountable for it.

BTW, I have just noticed that you have called for the abrogation of the Platt Amendment in your latest post. You are 74 years too late. How about calling for the abrogation of the Kennedy-Khruschev Pact?

1) You said: "But you have just admitted that you have received nothing but kindness throughout your life from Cubans."

Wrong. I have nothing but memories of kindness from the Cuban families whom I had close relations with. Thus, I have a generalized assumption about the kindness of others. But, I have no feelings of gratitude towards those who support intolerance and the use of violence. That applies to those here locally and around the world.

2) You said: "You are opposed to anti-Castro Cubans exercising their right to protest in a free country the atrocities committed by the Cuban dictator and his henchmen."

Wrong. I support the rights of all people to dissent, protest and demonstrate against injustice. But, that does not stop me from being critical of those who continue to support the use of violence or intimidation.

3) You said: "You even refuse to recognize that Castro is a dictator because that might prove offensive to him."

Wrong. I argued in my blog that the use of certain descriptors may risk the values of journalistic ethics. That does NOT apply to personal use of words. I personally consider the heads of the Cuban government as dictators (and totalitarian oligarchs). And, I have no problem with people using such words. But, my original argument had nothing to say about personal usage outside of professional quarters.

4) You said: "I have just noticed that you have called for the abrogation of the Platt Amendment in your latest post."

Wrong. I have not called for the abrogation of the Platt Amendment, I was quoting recommendations by respected historians James Blight and Philip Brenner from their book "Sad and Luminous Days."

Their recommendation refers not to an official abrogation, but rather to a public renouncement of the intentions of Platt. I recommend you read the book.

I hope you will take the time to provide a response to each delineation.

Oye,Paul Machu Picchu andate a la reconcha de tu madre. Malparido Inca.Don't be a Lameculo Maruca. Tu Las Cagas Paul B.Talking about something you don’t know anything about is always foolish because you’re always going to come across some-one who knows more than you eventually. Hence Manuel, Who, if they’re not polite will make you look a complete ass.I don’t want to sound like an embryonic Inca warrior sneering at the “elites”.Correct me if I am wrong but Cuban Issues is not your forte.

oye mambo why don't you contact alex from stuck on palmetto. gansibele alex wold be a good blog partner for you. He tries to dislike his marxist paradise childhood but he can't so he let rick disparage the CA's. I see ricky has been giving you moral support. alex needs a new "beard" as they say. A match made in heaven.

I see that if I devote the same time to you as I do to Val & Henry, I may actually hope to reform you. You have now admitted that, personally, at least, you regard Castro as a "tyrant" and "dictatorial oligarch," even though you are still opposed to journalists calling them that in print. I suppose this is progress of a kind, although I'll feel more reassured when I actually see you call Castro a dictator, tyrant or oligarch on your blog; or do you, as a trained journalist, also get the dispensation of not calling a spade a spade?

The picture which you use as your masthead at Mambo Watch well and truly illustrates not only your perception of Cuban exiles but your desire to restrain their constitutional right to protest. In that long ago protest, 22 years ago, how many people were killed or injured, how much property or public property was destroyed? You know the answer is none yet you choose to convey the opposite impression. Not until the day that picture day is replaced by one of Raúl Castro directing a firing squad will I believe that you have experienced any kind of political conversion. What you are doing now is backtracking because even you recognize that you have gone too far in your Cuban-bashing and become yourself the caricature which you have so long depicted Cuban exiles as.

It is naive but not unexpected of you to second Bright and Brenner's contention. Cubans don't need an apology for the Platt Amendment or reassurance that it won't be resurrected. That would mean as much as an apology for slavery: the perpetrators are not alive to make it and the victims are not alive to receive it. And to whom and when is this apology and promise to be made? You are not surely proposing that Americans apologize to Castro, who reintroduced imperialism in Cuba under a harsher taskmaster and has benefitted for 49 years from his own Platt Amendment, known as the Kennedy-Khrushchev Pact, which established the U.S. as the guarantor of Communism in Cuba. Do you know what is the best "public renouncement" of the spirit of the Platt Amendment? The return of Guantánamo Naval Base to a democratic Cuban government. That would have happened at the same time that the Panama Canal was returned to Panamanian jurisdiction but for Fidel Castro.

But you, of course, favor rewarding Castro for all his misdeeds and without any concessions on his part. This is true for the trade embargo and I am also sure it is true for Guantánamo.

lo publicare aqui en el comments section y luego goes to my blog for public viewing , I chose this blog since it has very few visits I know the secret will be well keptamong the regulars, vana, charlie and agustin

Excuse me for overlooking your comment. Yes, you are right, it was Gusano, not Henry, who seconded Val's contention that he is the father of the Cuban blogosphere (here and on the island).

All the Babalunians have their "Pauline stories," and they are all remarkably alike: they discovered Cuba when they discovered Babalú. In view of this it doesn't really matter who said it. Gusano's comment represents the collective mentality (or should I say, delusion?).

1) You said: "I suppose this is progress of a kind, although I'll feel more reassured when I actually see you call Castro a dictator, tyrant or oligarch on your blog."

As early as February of last year I have referred to Fidel Castro as a dictator. My posts are available for viewing.

2) You said: "The picture which you use as your masthead at Mambo Watch well and truly illustrates not only your perception of Cuban exiles but your desire to restrain their constitutional right to protest."

Wrong. I have already made clear that I am critical of hard-liners, not Cubans. The photo is from March 22, 1986 and reported as:

"Two thousand supporters of U.S. aid to the Nicaraguan contras crammed a block-long strip of downtown Miami's busiest street (Biscayne Blvd.) Saturday, chanting epithets, tossing eggs and taunting an outnumbered group of anti-contra protesters across the street."

The anti-Contra protester were OUTNUMBERED by hard-liners some of which tossed objects and created a riot. In the following days, many in Miami were angered by the behavior of the rioters, which was reflected in the Herald editorials and separate articles.

3) You said: "Cubans don't need an apology for the Platt Amendment or reassurance that it won't be resurrected."

Never has it been suggested that the US apologize for anything. Never by the authors mentioned, nor by myself. If you have evidence to the contrary please show it.

"On Saturday, David Camp went to hear a speech at the Torch of Friendship (on Biscayne Blvd.)... Camp and his fiance arrived late. As they crossed the boulevard they heard shouting, then saw the riot squad. A policeman told Camp to get away, but it was too late."

'All of a sudden people started shouting, Comunista! Comunista! I turned around and somebody hit me right in the face, hit me again, then he started kickin me.'

"Camp and his girlfriend ran for their car, but were cut off by a band of pro-contra demonstrators... The gang cornered them in the doorway of a shoe store. 'It's a mistake, a mistake!' Camp cried. 'I'm not a Communist.'"

"A middle-aged Cuban man demanded to see David's identification. The man examined it, then handed it to another thug who did something that terrified David Camp: He took a photograph of the young man's driver's license."

It would appear that all I have to do is point to some aspect of your well-known anti-Cubanism for you immediately to deny it or repudiate it. If I had made it my goal a year ago to reform you, my work would already be done. But, really, you don't need me to highlight your excesses since you are perfectly aware of them because they were intentional.

If you are really intent on becoming less biased, however, I would suggest that you worry not so much about what you have written in the past but what you will write in the future.

So mambo,let me get this straight. Back in 1986 some innocent bystander got hit in the face by a group of protesting angry hardliners. What this shows me is the peaceful, human and overall decent nature of Cuban Americans in Miami. You had to go all the way back to an incident in 1986 to show one aberration? Give me a break. You are SO biased.

Cuban Americans have demonstrated to be a group of people who lost EVERYTHING, (and NO, I don't mean money) and they still managed to thrive, prosper and not ever be a burden on another society. Yes, if pushed, we fight back.

Your blog is over. Are you planning on trying to dissect and give apologies for all the biased propaganda you wrote on it here? If so, yawn . . . Hey, may I sugggest a new blog for you! MMMMMMEA CULPA.com

It is doubtful that any group in this country can claim what Cuban-Americans can: in the course of 50 years, and many thousands of protests, there has never been one casualty; nor have Cubans ever burned, looted or rioted in this country. That is the fact. All who suggest otherwise are liars at best and propagandists at worst; and, in any case, enemies of the our community.

Oh wow Mambo is still whining!I remember when the Elian controversy, my husband and I had already come home from Miami, we were sitting in our living room watching our people protesting, and were shocked at the lack of violence, we were so angry we wanted to hurt something, this goes to show just how civil we are, if some call us hardliners that's their problem, not ours.

Very interesting responses of denial. I never mentioned that ALL Cubans behave like a certain few, but your negative assumptions embrace that false attribution. Your attributions are wrong (as I have repeated above), and surely seems difficult for some of you to reject. I focus on certain individuals to criticize, and I state FACT. The problem here seems to be your support of the collective hard-line identity. You believe ALL Cuban exiles support people like Posada Carriles, Arocena or Bosch? I doubt that.

So, let's use a specific example to reflect on: Antonio De la Cova.

Mr. De la Cova's personal history (for those familiar with it) is highly symbolic of the Cuban exile in Miami. Yet, by the time he reached 25 it was reported that he was exhibiting radical and violent behavior, which university professors at FAU grew extremely worried about. They said his behavior was threatening and that he often bragged of violent acts. Some professors attempted to take actions for expulsion. After his 1976 arrest, the FBI searched Mr. De la Cova's apartment and found several books which were later described as bearing "directly upon violent death, war, and revolution."

The FBI had already begun an investigation on Mr. De la Cova after he was considered a suspect of fire bombings. An FBI agent (George R. Kiszinsky) one day stopped Mr. De la Cova on his bike after he was found driving around a fire-bomb victims house. Mr. De la Cova ran away after being pulled over.

He was eventually arrested for his involvement in a planned attempt to destroy property with a pipe bomb. At his sentencing he affirmed that his "nationalistic impulses" were taken advantage of by the FBI, yet he didn't deny planting the pipe bomb. Instead he stated:

"My Christian and democratic environment influenced me to oppose communism relentlessly and vehemently... I have been found guilty of violating the laws of this nation, but my motivation was not to defy the system, instead it became a futile attempt to expose those who threaten its very existence and are responsible for the misery in my own country."

No doubt some here share those sentiments, but who here would dare such an act? That's were my criticism originates from.

Oye Mambo,it's viernes social dude. I'm gonna go relax now. I can do that because I can live with myself. Oh, and no need to disparage Prof. DeLaCova here; why not just go directly to him...oh, but that would mean you'd have to be a man. Gotta go, the weather is a balmy 62 degrees and the sun is shining. My weekend awaits me. Ciao!

Concerning Mr. De la Cova, I did confront him. We had quite a chat over the phone last year, after he challenged me to call him. He even apologized to me after I pointed out a FACT which he called me a liar for. A real gentleman. After we found that there really was nothing to talk about (and no substance to Mr. De la Cova's false accusations) we ended our conversation.

I continued to write about Mr. De la Cova and his misinterpretations over historical facts (posted and cited on my blog), and he cowardly responded by publishing my private responses to him from before.

Mambo,you may not believe this but I take no pleasure in seeing you squirm and whine. You are a sad case. Here's some free advice:For your own mental health, let it go.

I don't know how long you kept your blog (I'm guessing more than a year) but during that time you were able to spout your opinion on many topics involving Cuba and the Cuban American experience even though you are neither Cuban nor have much of a clue. You were able to do this because as of yet, we are a free society. Now, someone has decided to "unmask" you and you cannot handle it.

I am always taken aback at the thin skin that most bullies have. Get over it.

The fact that my personal information has been made public (without my permission) has left me more vulnerable than before, but it doesn't bother me. It's hardly relevant. I actually laugh about it because it was a desperate and immature act by a Ph.D.

But, that's the sad part. After this happened I reviewed Mr. De la Cova's history, and was shocked. His illicit behavior continues from 1976, to Puerto Rico, and to today. All in the newspapers and available to the public.

When I realized that this was another of Mr. De la Cova's acts of immaturity, I made myself a sandwich and continued my blogging. Mr. De la Cova has ruined his reputation, and continues to do so.

His meaningless self-sacrifice has nothing to do with me, and could care less.

I am sure that you meant to defame Professor de la Cova yet again and that you must derive some perverse pleasure from doing it here. Nothing that you have said, however, detracts from him as a man or a patriot. On the contrary, the measure of the man is evident in his words, just as yours, Pancho, will always evince your contempt for Cubans.

That is something that you need never have to worry about. I agree with you that it would be the smartest thing that Raúl could do. If his non-reforms or intimations of reforms are heralded by the MSM with such enthusiasm and expectations, imagine if he actually did something substantial such as free all of Cuba's political prisoners. Raúl would probably be hailed as the second coming. Of course, he would only be the second coming of his brother. Back in the 70s, Fidel used to release political prisoners to practically every famous visitor to Cuba as a "goodwill gesture" intended to offer that individual some cover at home for cavorting in Cuba. The release of these prisoners led to no changes in Cuba; the prisoners, even the most famous of them, were quickly absorbed into the exile community and their relevance as dissenters correspondingly reduced.

Any similar symbolic gesture which presages reform even if does not actually deliver it would rebound to Raúl's favor in the short term; but he would have to become someone other than he is to institute meaningful economic reforms. The system serves him and his cronies well and there are few recorded cases of dictators in their late 70s suddenly renouncing the tenor of their lives and pointing their countries in a new direction. Raúl, remember, is a homocidal murderer and serial killer; a veritable sponge for alcohol and drugs; Hitler in his bunker in his last days. Don't expect much in the way of change from him.